Vaughan & Vaughan (No 2)

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the case of Vaughan & Vaughan (No 2) involved a dispute over parenting arrangements and financial matters between Ms Vaughan and Mr Vaughan. The couple, married in 2006, have five children, three of whom have special needs. The father sought to vary the time-spending arrangements for the children and sought equal time with four of the children. The father did not comply with previous orders for time-spending and admitted instances of family violence during his submissions. The court had to decide whether the circumstances had changed to warrant a revisit of the previously ordered parenting arrangements.

The court found that there had not been a change in circumstances that would warrant revisiting the previously ordered parenting arrangements. Given the father's non-compliance and the admissions of family violence, the court maintained the existing orders for supervised time-spending at a Children’s Contact Service. The court also restrained the father from discussing the proceedings with the children and from recording any appointments with experts. The court ordered the preparation of a family report by a Court Child Expert or Family Consultant to address the children's views, the impact of various orders on the children and their relationships with both parents, and any other matters considered important for the children's welfare. The court dismissed the father's application for equal time with four of the children and referred the matter to the pool of matters awaiting trial. The mother's application to reopen the interlocutory financial proceedings was listed for an interim hearing.

The court ordered that the father spend supervised time with the children at the designated service, with specific conditions regarding the frequency and duration of the visits. The father was further restrained from discussing the proceedings with the children and from recording any expert appointments. The parties were enjoined from discussing the proceedings with the children or permitting others to do so. The Independent Children’s Lawyer was granted liberty to relist the parenting proceedings if the contact service ceased to facilitate the visits. The court also ordered the preparation of a family report by a designated expert, with specific instructions regarding the content and dissemination of the report. The court ordered the parties to provide their contact details and attend interviews with the expert as directed. The mother’s application to reopen the financial aspect of the interlocutory proceedings was listed for an interim hearing.